Beauty: Culture-Specific or Universally Defined?

The universality of some beauty markers.

Social constructivists, who are strong proponents of the blank slate premise of the human mind, have repeatedly argued that there are no universal metrics of beauty (as was the case in Dr. Albers' latest post). The strategy for arguing their case is to identify beauty metrics that are radically different across cultural settings, and hence conclude that universal components of beauty do not exist. I am afraid that this is a grossly incomplete and incorrect perspective.

It is undeniable that indeed there are an endless number of cultural definitions of beauty. However, these are largely inconsequential, when compared to evolutionarily relevant metrics. Let me provide you with two drastic culture-specific examples of beauty: (1) the wearing of large lip plates (Surma and Mursi women of Ethiopia); (2) neck elongation (Kareni and Padaung women of Myanmar). Ah ha! Social constructivists construe these examples as perfect manifestations of the social construction of beauty. Furthermore, social constructivists are quick to point to the heterogeneity of mating preferences within a given culture as further proof of their position. For example, some men prefer blondes while others prefer brunettes. Some women prefer men with dark complexions while others prefer light-skinned gentlemen. Fair enough but this does not imply that there are no universal metrics of beauty.

Symmetric faces are construed as more beautiful than asymmetric faces in all cultures (irrespective of the race of the person being evaluated and the race of the evaluator). You can visit Bedouins in the Middle East, the Yanomamo in the Amazon, and Inuits in the Canadian north, and they will all agree as to who is or is not beautiful (based on facial features). Clear skin is a universal preference. Certain morphological features that connote masculinity (square jaw) or femininity (high-cheek bones) are universally preferred. Rotund Rubanesque women, heavier women preferred in Central Africa, and catwalk thin models, while varying greatly in terms of their weight, all tend to have hourglass figures that correspond roughly to a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.70 (although cultural settings can slightly alter that preference). Babies who are insufficiently cognitively developed to be influenced by socialization gaze at symmetric faces for longer periods than they do at asymmetric ones. I can provide numerous other examples that support the universal components of beauty but I suppose that you get the point. It seems that irrespective of the number of times that these points are made, social constructivists simply cannot accept the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in support of the universality of some beauty metrics.

Generating cross-cultural differences of beauty and then arguing that this implies that there are no universal standards of beauty is as sophisticated a logic, as to argue that since miniature poodles and Great Danes are so radically different (morphologically speaking), they must constitute different species! One needs to look at the relevant metrics prior to arriving at the relevant conclusions.

For additional details about this issue (and relevant references), the readers can refer to my book The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption and/or to my forthcoming trade book to be published in 2011 by Prometheus Books.

To summarize: It is indeed true that many metrics of beauty are socially constructed. However, it is unequivocally clear that many others are universally defined, as these constitute cues of phenotypic quality that hold true irrespective of cultural setting or time period.

I think you do Dr. Albers a disservice when you claim she argues there are "no universal metrics of beauty." That's not really her position, as I read it. She wrote, "The overarching theme of the show-beautiful is unique to each and every culture. There is no universal definition of beauty."

You further undermine your position in the examples you cite, referring to the plump women of Central America as being culturally-defined as attractive (while conforming to the hourglass proportions you rightly cite as a seemingly universal marker). As I read Dr. Albers' piece, she was arguing that skinniness is not a universal marker of beauty, as is assumed in many Western societies. She doesn't claim that beauty is a purely arbitrary, blank-slate social construction, as you claim.

In short, you seem to have done precisely what so many knee-jerk evolutionary psychologists complain others do to them: you misread someone else's argument, conveniently ignoring all nuance therein so you could dismiss it in overwrought, insulting language.

Thank you for your thoughts. Nice job with the patronizing and condescending tone. See Dr. Albers' for an example of a polite and respectful reply.

There is nothing in my post that can be construed as insulting. The "beauty-is-a-social construction" is one of the foundational tenets of social constructivism whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not. I was making the point that Dr. Albers' post did not recognize that both universal as well as culture-specific metrics are operative when defining beauty. Your parsing of the semantic difference between her use of "no universal definition" versus my use of "no universal metrics of beauty" is unconvincing I am afraid.

No serious evolutionary psychologist believes that culture is irrelevant. Hence, I was reaffirming the point that when it comes to beauty, both biology and culture matter. No know-jerk reaction rather a mere statement of fact.

That said I again thank you for contributing to the discussion. Have a good afternoon.

Thank you for your comment to the post "Fat is Beautiful." You provided a very indepth and interesting comparison.

I think our points are actually in agreement rather than opposed to each other. In the future, I will be sure to highlight the obvious point that there are "elements" of beauty that are universal (as I do in previous blogs and never disagreed with at all). Your blog seems to extend the topic and take it in a slightly different direction.

The exploration of beauty across cultures is a fascinating topic. It sounds like your area of expertise and I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint.

Thank you for posting your thoughts. Beauty is indeed an exciting topic for both scientists as well as lay people. I am happy to hear that you agree that both culture and biology affect our definitions of beauty.

I look forward to reading your future contributions on the topic. I wish you a good day.

There is a universal definition of beauty. It's so built-in to the definition that people miss beauty is fundamentally about female physical characteristics, specifically those which center around health, fertility, and reproduction. Sure, the word can have auxiliary meanings, but all trace back there.

This was really driven home to me while once talking to someone who did construction, a prototypically all-male activity. When somebody comes up with something especially clever and aesthetically pleasing on the jobsite, an observer might comment approvingly "that's tits!".

Guys will totally (and instantly) get this allusion in its entirety, but the gals will almost certainly not -- they might even think the guys are just being boorish, or worse. I think this is because males have built-in beauty detectors, courtesy of evolution, that females just don't have.

I'd suggest this is why women don't have much if any comprehension of a universal or absolute dimension to beauty, why for them it's all arbitrary ("in the eye of the beholder", or "socially constructed"), why they're so rudderless as to actually think the fashion industry, which is designed to sell stuff to women, that they'd buy into the marketing hype about it representing some "cultural standard" -- which nevertheless is constantly changing with the latest declared "trend".

Guys sound more like this fellow: "A woman’s attractiveness is an absolute. There is no Uglitopia where Rachel McAdams could go that would make her look ugly and Cigstache look good." (roissy)

Let me take a flying leap and guess you'll get a kick out of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles [on the subject of beauty, "body image", etc.] by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

I had not heard of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism. Thank you for sharing it.

As I discuss in my 2007 book, Dove's highly successful recent campaign revolves around the premise that beauty is arbitrary (and as such all women have the potential to be considered beautiful). In this sense, Dove's message conforms to Sailer's Law in spirit.

So are you saying that all men have the same definition of beauty? Can you describe a beautiful women and honestly believe that everey other man on this earth will agree with you? Why do you believe this?

I recommend you check into the waist-hip ratio Mr. Saad mentioned as well as The Golden Ratio and ask why so many things in nature are beautiful? A good song is also instantly recognizable as beautiful. As much as I hated my math teacher I recognize that there must be some mathematical constant between all forms of beauty. But of course not everyone AGREES on beauty, some people like Coldplay.

Pretty much dead on, but I'd also like to offer some corrections to the OP- lip plates and neck stretching focus on traits that show a good deal of sexual dimorphism in humans. Women universally have larger and thicker lips than men, and women universally have longer and thinner necks than men. It's probably an exageration of sexual dimorphism. You see cases of it all the time throughout history, like corsets, eyelash extensions etc.

Granted, lip plates and neck stretching are pretty extreme, but they do have a roughly similar basis.

Also, symmetry, while a consistent correlate of beauty, is relatively weak:

i am currently doing an essay for my philosophy class on what i think beauty is (more complex than that) but i had the same theory about beauty being universal and i very much enjoyed reading your article you made some very strong points
i just wanted to thank you for the article
that is all

It seems to me that there are elements of both of these ideas supported by the data. The fact that I'm as horrified by neck rings as the men of that culture are aroused by them shows that there is variation. On the other hand, the fact that there is no culture in which one drooping eye has been found to be an ideal of beauty shows that there are defined parameters within which these variations exist.

Now where I find this article less convincing is that the parameters described tend to be biological norms for appearance, as much as they are for preference. In other words, people are still selecting from the available pool of what's normal in that area. Barring a fetish of some sort, most people would not find an extra set of arms attractive, but if we were to introduce a culture in which extra arms, asymmetrical faces, or whatever unattractive trait of your choice were the more common trait, would we then find a culture in which those things had become standards of beauty? In as far as this sort of experiment is ethical and possible, it seems to me that the non-universalists have the data thus far.

Tests where people self describe are useless. Especially in choosing beauty today. Men know they are supposed to choose a bigger women to be politically correct for example. Things like that throw off your results and make them useless. So anything coming from such tests is also useless.